Assessment of EoI:249



EoI Metadata

Performance of EoI 249 in Himalayas - Percentile by Average Score


Section 1 - Experience & strengths relevant to the proposed Indigenous territory, landscape/seascape (Total Points: 30)

A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?

Scoring:

  • Not significant;

  • Low Significance;

  • Moderate Significance;

  • Medium-high Significance;

  • High Significance;

  • Exceptional Significance

Reviewer A: 5/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: Large KBAs (plural) plus intact and threatened forest landscapes

Evidence B:The proposed location is highly significant because this location is home for some endemic and endangered species such as Pittas, Malaysian Tapirs, gibbons, Asian elephants, clouded leopard and tigers.


2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?

Scoring:

  • >50 t/ha - Low;

  • 50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;

  • >100 t/ha - High

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 1/2

Average: 1.5/2

Evidence A: Higher than 150 t/ha over most of the site area

Evidence B:There is no information on carbon stock in the proposal, but irrecoverable carbon spatial indicated that the region covering with 50 - 100 t/ha.


B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?

Scoring:

  • IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;

  • Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);

  • Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;

  • Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;

  • Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: Continued management in place, but with legal uncertainty and with religious conversion and war undermining some cultural practices linked to governance. De facto, but not de jure, control over some of the territories, no control over some areas.

Evidence B:The IPLC maintains the location with some limitations due to some threats come from extractive industries such as mining and palm oil.


4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?

Scoring:

  • No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;

  • Significance of site(s) vaguely described;

  • Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/2

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: Well explained.

Evidence B:The applicant describes the importance of the proposed location for cultural activities of Karen communities. One of the main characteristics of the Karen community is the strong reliance on and relationship with medical roots and herbs from the forest.


C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?

Scoring:

  • No evident threats;

  • Low threats;

  • Moderate threats;

  • Medium-high threats;

  • High threats;

  • Requires urgent action

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: Infrastructure, dams, agribusiness, climate change and coastal change, over-fishing, but also conservation areas with exclusion possible.

Evidence B:the proposed location face serious threats from agribusiness expansion, mining concession, infrastructure projects, and protected areas controlled by the government


D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?

Scoring:

  • Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;

  • Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);

  • Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: Myanmar law recognises only limited rights.

Evidence B:The government designated some policies and planning for promoting IPLC-led conservation but it is lack of information about the implementation of such policies.


7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?

Scoring:

  • National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;

  • National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation

Reviewer A: 1/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 1.5/3

Evidence A: In limited places and under limited conditions (Salween Peace Park is a major exception), but there is some support. may be able to capitalise on it.

Evidence B:The government implements some support for IPLC-led conservation such as Forest Master Plan and UNFCCC Targets.


8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?

Scoring:

  • No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;

  • Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;

  • Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;

  • Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: Only a few very are beyond pilot stage, but they do exist.

Evidence B:The applicant indicates some relevant IPLC-led conservations programs to show how conservation initiatives have been successful in protecting the landscape. For instance, Kamoethway, Paw Klo, and Htee Moe Phwar.


E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?

Scoring:

  • Few to no complementary projects/investment;

  • Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;

  • Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial

Reviewer A: 2/2 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/2

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The applicant has been implementing some relevant programs with the proposed activities in the EoI. These programs are supported by a variety of donors such as RFN, WWF, SIDA, and SwedBio



Section 1:

Reviewer A Total Score: 22/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 25/30

Average Total Score: 23.5/30



Performance of EoI 249 in Himalayas - Percentile by Average Score (Section 1)


Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)

A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?

Scoring:

  • Weakly aligned;

  • Partially aligned;

  • Well aligned;

  • Exceptionally well aligned

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: Very well aligned, but perhaps smaller in scope than the ambition of the ICI

Evidence B:The proposal exceptionally aligned with the ICI’s objective to enhance IPLC efforts to steward the land and natural resource to deliver global environmental benefits.


2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?

Scoring:

  • The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;

  • Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;

  • Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;

  • The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: Excellent

Evidence B:The proposed activities in this EoI are well designed with detailed targets and outcomes. These activities can be grouped in conservation planning and ICCA demarcation, Livelihood activities, landscape coordination activities, biodiversity, and registration, finalisation, and advocacy.


3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?

Scoring:

  • Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;

  • Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;

  • Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;

  • The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: Threats are considerable, and difficult / entrenched. Very well designed project. Unclear if they are realistic, but could be under good condition.

Evidence B:the proposed activities are designed to empowering IPLC’s capacity as well as strengthening the legal status of IPLC-led conservation. This strategy is relevant to tackle the main threats from extractive industries in this area.


4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?

Scoring:

  • Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;

  • Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;

  • Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: Total cost of the project is unclear, but would be at the lower end of the range of investment envisaged.

Evidence B:Activities and results exceptionally well aligned with range of investment and it seems that the target of these activities also too ambitious.


5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?

Scoring:

  • None;

  • Small;

  • Moderate;

  • Significant

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 2/3

Average: 2/3

Evidence A: Large projects named, no detail on funding or co-funding size or scope. Concrete (yes) but significant (not demonstrated)

Evidence B:There is some ongoing project that is relevant to support this activity, but the applicant does not explain in detail how much budget can be mobilized to support this program.


B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?

Scoring:

  • Not provided;

  • Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);

  • Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);

  • High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);

  • Very high above 1,000,000 Ha

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: NA

Evidence B:The targeted area to be improved through this project is 637.929 hectares.


7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?

Scoring:

  • No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;

  • Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;

  • Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;

  • Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: Livelihood, strengthened governance and cultural indicators are all present.

Evidence B:The applicant clearly formulated cultural and livelihood results contributing to the project objectives.


8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?

Scoring:

  • Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;

  • This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;

  • This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;

  • This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance

Reviewer A: 2/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 2.5/3

Evidence A: Unclear long-term funding,

Evidence B:This project is intended for a robust vision for long-term sustainability by addressing policy and institutional reform to support IPLC-led conservation


C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?

Scoring:

  • Contributions not provided;

  • The project is weakly related to either national priorities;

  • The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;

  • The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: Directly relevant to cited targets. Political will on the side of the government still unclear though.

Evidence B:The proposed project is in line with 2015-2020 Myanmar National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan and NDC.


D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?

Scoring:

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;

  • Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');

  • Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming

Reviewer A: 3/3 Reviewer B: 3/3

Average: 3/3

Evidence A: Women’s roles in management, conservation, sustainable use all clear

Evidence B:The proposed project will implement to ensure 40% of women representation and local knowledge documentation will unravel women’s rich biological knowledge.


E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Low demonstrated potential;

  • Moderate demonstrated potential;

  • Medium-high demonstrated potential;

  • High demonstrated potential;

  • Exceptional demonstrated potential

Reviewer A: 2/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: If demonstrated successfully here could be replicated within the country

Evidence B:This proposed project is really derived from IPLC grassroots level to provide a good case for regional and global ICCA’s network.



Section 2:

Reviewer A Total Score: 30/40
Reviewer B Total Score: 38/40

Average Total Score: 34/40



Performance of EoI 249 in Himalayas - Percentile by Average Score (Section 2)


Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)

A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?

Scoring:

  • IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;

  • Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;

  • IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);

  • Fully IPLC composed and led approach

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: KESAN and other named lead partners are indigenous led

Evidence B:This proposal composes IPLC led approach and the applicant submit the EoI on behalf of some IPLC groups.


2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?

Scoring:

  • None demonstrated;

  • Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;

  • Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;

  • Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work

Reviewer A: 4/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 5/6

Evidence A: Long-term and site-based leadership.

Evidence B:The applicant has been partnering with several NGOs and IPCL group in implementing similar projects in the past.


C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?

Scoring:

  • No partners defined;

  • No IPLC partners identified;

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);

  • IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);

  • Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;

  • Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks

Reviewer A: 4/5 Reviewer B: 5/5

Average: 4.5/5

Evidence A: Yes, and confirmed with ICCA support letter, plus wide networks within Myanmar

Evidence B:The applicant will work with some partner organizations to implement the program with IPLC.


D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?

Scoring:

  • No skills demonstrated;

  • The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;

  • There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;

  • The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;

  • They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;

  • The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.

Reviewer A: 3/5 Reviewer B: 4/5

Average: 3.5/5

Evidence A: Good, additional partners well chosen.

Evidence B:The applicant has capacity to implement the project, but it has not worked for any project funded by GEF in the past.


E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?

Scoring:

  • Very limited (no criteria met);

  • Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);

  • Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);

  • Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance

Reviewer A: 6/6 Reviewer B: 6/6

Average: 6/6

Evidence A: Appears strong. no idea what the largest project is previously, but above 100k

Evidence B:The applicant has a strong management capacity to maintain a big project. Annual budget is USD 1.2 million with support of more than 10 donor agencies.


6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?

Scoring:

  • Answered no;

  • Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;

  • Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent

Reviewer A: 1/2 Reviewer B: NA/2

Average: NA/2

Evidence A: Only through review of application of safeguards to other projects (SECU complaint), but this is more than nothing.

Evidence B:KESAN in a member of CAT, which is currently involved in SECU review of the “Ridge to Reef” project in the region



Section 3:

Reviewer A Total Score: 24/30
Reviewer B Total Score: 27/30

Average Total Score: 34/30



Performance of EoI 249 in Himalayas - Percentile by Average Score (Section 3)